All the Pentax DSLRs to date use the same sensor, and all offer a range of modes from fully manual to fully auto.

The D has the best feature set, but the slowest buffer.

Basically, buy whatever is available at a nice price. The kit lenses are quite good, and good value. Worth getting if you don't already have a portfolio of lenses.

The new 16-45 lens is highly regarded. Bear in mind that the sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame, so the angle of view is reduced. Multiply all focal lengths by 1.5 to get the equivalent angle of view.

For shooting in a theatre, you need speed more than anything. Two fast primes will be cheaper than a fast zoom. For low light shooting, you can even use an old screw-mount Takumar wide-open (with a K adaptor) and it will meter automatically in Av mode.

Good luck

G

Welcome, Galoot.

Your Spottie looks superb.

But I have to tell you you are cheating with your pictures. Selecting the Highlands of Scotland is not fair. They're just too picturesque. But I must say you've captured them well.

By the way, by Arasaig, I think you mean Arisaig, near Mallaig, the old ferry port for going to Skye. And should Egg not be Eigg?

The road (and railway line) from Fort William to Mallaig goes through some of the most beautiful scenery in the world. It's a shame so few people from the rest of Britain ever get to see it.

Thanks for the reminder.

G

Nice simple site, Don, easy to navigate and with no distracting Flash nonsense.

Good luck with the venture.

G

Funnily enough, only today I was reading an old interview with Ross Walker, son of Peter, the founder of Quad.

He said he didn't try to cater to audiophiles because they weren't interested in perfection, they wanted something better. (Or words to that effect).

Like you, I tend to like an aspect of photography (in my case the techno/mechanical part) as much as the finished product. I don't in any way criticise you for your approach to photography, but I do take exception to your original remarks about Pentax DSLRs. Within their limits of pixel size and cost, they are excellent performers, and arguably better than the direct competition.

It's a shame they don't have a full-frame D6x7, but economic reality means that it's not going to happen, in the foreseeable future at least.

George

You've totally changed your tune since your first post when you complained that Pentax DSLR cameras weren't as sharp as the competition.

Now you say they don't compare with MF cameras, and of course they don't. They're not meant to.

If you had been tuned into Earth news during the past twelve months you would have heard of the Pentax 645D. It might possibly be sharp enough for the .0001% of photographers who place sharpness above all other qualities in a photograph.

You are reminiscent of those hi-fi buffs of old who claimed that they could hear the difference between two different sorts of speaker cable. Meanwhile, the rest of us were listening to the music.

If you want to complain that Pentax isn't producing a DMF camera to rival a Gandolfi, then feel free. But don't mix that up with a general and inaccurate whinge about Pentax 6MP cameras being less sharp than the direct competition. They're not. At least, they're not to people who know what they're doing.

G

Pentax will not be preleasing a 6x7 digital. If they did, with a full -frame chip, it would cost about as much as a house. That's why they won't.

G

You're just not listening, are you?

For a start, the only fair test of different camera bodies is a controlled test where the only variable is the camera body itself.

This means using the same lens on all bodies. This can be achieved using a Tamron lens with an Adaptall mount. Any other approach is null and void. Your friend "Doctor" Neiman no doubt got his PhD in knitting.

Second, the same subject has to be used, and third, the same lighting has to be used. That means studio lighting, not daylight, which will vary with time and atmospheric conditions.

Finally, the camera should be on a good tripod, on concrete, mirror-up and with a remote release.

Having established a level playing field, there is then the the matter of in-camera sharpening to consider. This varies from make to make and model to model. You CANNOT (and I repeat this, as you appear a little hard of reading), you CANNOT just take the image straight out of the camera, you have to post-process it.

I can obtain results from my two Pentax DSLRs which are as sharp as anything I've seen from any digital camera save for full-frame and medium format.

Now kindly go away and do some research before peddling any more ignorant nonsense. For your information, Ken Rockwell is a laughing stock amongst serious photographers. Have a look at his site and you'll soon see why.

G

It's been said a million times before, and will no doubt have to be said a million times again, that DSLRs do not produce a finished image. You HAVE to do some post-processing, and if you are not prepared to do that, and go through the necessary learning curve (it's not THAT difficult), then you should sell the camera and buy a point and shoot.

G

Duncan,

You're right. I was referring to using a fixed aperture with studio flash.

G


Duncan,

You're right. I was referring to using a fixed aperture with studio flash.

G

I've been having problems with the forum software recently, too.

I wasn't convinced by this variable aperture business, but after a discussion on here a couple of months ago I did a series of tests with fixed and variable aperture zooms, and found that the aperture of the 24-90 does change by as much as a full stop depending on the focal length.

I had put my sometimes erratic exposures down to carelessness with the lights, but now accept that it was the aperture shift of the lens that was to blame.

Thank you to those who put me right (Arthur and JR, I think).

G